New Straits Times A LOT has been said on the matter involving former lord president Tun Salleh Abas and other judges following the ex-gratia payment of RM10.5 million, including RM5 million to Salleh.
I am not disputing whatever sum that he got but the government, and especially former law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, should not try to make out as if Salleh had been victimised. For if the statements by Zaid and others are to be believed, the payment is a restitution for what they (especially Salleh) went through 20 years ago, the inference being that he had been unfairly treated and had not been given the due process he was entitled to.
Thus, the suggestion by Noramtaz Abdullah (“It’s time to set the record straight”— N S T, Nov 11) that the government should reveal all is in order.
To put things in perspective, I would like to cite the chronology of events leading to the “sacking” as mentioned in the booklet The Unrebutted Charges Against Tun Salleh Abas, an extract from the book Judicial Misconduct by Peter Alderidge Williams QC.
It gives a different picture of the events leading to the convening of the tribunal. This is the chronology of events according to Williams.
What sparked the incident was a letter from Salleh to the then king on March 26, 1988.
On May 27, 1988, in the presence of the deputy prime minister and the chief secretary to the government, the prime minister informed Salleh that the king wished him to step down, that is, retire as the lord president, because of the letters he had sent to the rulers.
May 28, 1988: Salleh signed the letter of resignation.
May 29: Salleh withdrew his resignation by letter and held a press conference.
June 2: Through the newspapers, Salleh made a request for a public hearing of a tribu n a l .
June 3: Through the newspapers, Salleh requested that the tribunal consist of “per - sons of high judicial standing”.
June 9: The prime minister made a second representation to the king alleging further misconduct by Salleh based upon Salleh’s undignified use of the press.
June 11: Members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Constitution by the king.
June 14: Salleh was served with a list of the charges against him.
June 17: Salleh was served with a set of rules setting out the procedure the tribunal would follow.
June 21: Anthony Lester’s application to be admitted to the court for the purpose of defending Salleh was granted with the attorney-general offering no objection.
June 27: Salleh’s solicitors were informed that the tribunal hearing would proceed on June 29 and that Salleh had permission to be represented by his solicitors and Lester.
June 29: The tribunal convened but counsel for Salleh informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Counsel for Salleh applied unsuccessfully for a week’s adjournment.
July 7: The tribunal completed its report for the king but did not submit it.
Williams said it was clear from the summary that a some fancy footwork was going on behind the scenes and the least important matter that seemed to be commanding Salleh’s attention was the actual confrontation and squaring up with the charges preferred against him.
Thus, a reading of the book gives an insight into the incident and gives the impression that Salleh was not as innocent as some people h ave made him out to be, that is, being victimised.
No comments:
Post a Comment